Below is my response to Central Bank:
The Governor,
Central Bank of Sri Lanka
Colombo,
Governor,
Colombo confiscates Tamil rehabilitation funds
As per the latest news report:
'Around 71 million Rupees in the accounts of the Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation (TRO) in the Sri Lankan banks have been confiscated by the Sri Lankan Government, according to a press release by the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka on Tuesday. The move is widely seen as an act of 'structural genocide' against Eezham Tamils, preventing Tamils looking after their own rehabilitation, discouraging individual, organisational and international contribution to Tamil rehabilitation and also as a response of Colombo to the rehabilitation funds being raised by the Government of Tamil Nadu, said a TRO activist in Norway. '
Given that many million Tamils have contributed to a healthy Banking system your actions foreshadow financial disaster for all those who contributed to the above seizure. You needed to use faith and not convenience in this instance. Shame on you.
The letter below to my Bank in Australia might help you better appreciate the ways of Natural Justice which is the only reliable path that can protect the Sri Lankan government from contributing to Terrorism at global level. :
Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam
Mr. Nick Hayes
Senior Investigator
St George Bank
Kogarah
19 November 2008
Dear Mr. Hayes,
You are not Good with People nor Good with Money
I write further to my yesterday s email response to your email request to delete your name from my email list.
Many others before you tried in many forms and failed to get my obedience. Some others started returning my emails which you also could do by using your IT skills or through your influence with your IT division. But if you had studied/investigated my history with the bank at least after I wrote to your Managing Director, you would have appreciated that I was not driven by money and / or status but that I am a medium through which Natural Justice works. By failing to do this, you failed to connect to my good karma in International systems. Your faith/trust in Asian migrants, Women and Financial experts was not strong enough for you to share in our pain and losses in achieving our international status which was highly respected by officers of your bank at Randwick Branch.
Given that I am not driven by money and/or status for majority activities in my life and certainly in financial engagements, I am not your competitor in this matter. Hence what you do is for the issue/value we together personify/manifest. If I lose i.e. feel the loss then you gain. When will I lose ? only when I have already gained. I cannot lose something I did not have in one form or the other at the beginning of this transaction/matter. Under those circumstances, any fall in value on my side is a Cost and not a Loss.
Let us therefore apply this to the email interaction. I did not have official status at the beginning of our interaction. My earned status was taken away by the Vice Chancellor of the UNSW in which the Bank also participated at the latter stages through a junior officer like yourself. You are junior officer in substance for this investigative service. Otherwise you would not have used the Australian Federal Police at that early stage of our relationship and that too to threaten me with total ban in Australian Banking system. If I were not truly Australian, I would not have connected to majority Australians through my home suburb of Coogee which is a holiday/business suburb. If you were the only banker we had we would not have made it to that prosperous status. My family and I are a big part of that progress and I am a bigger part of the stability of Coogee due to me disciplining and educating the thugs who wanted to cheat the Public for personal gain and towards which they chose to threaten me with thuggery. I reported them to the Police who took no action to protect me. I publicized the matter and thus warned the thugs that if anything happened to me the Public would know through majority value. That is the value of media. I just am a natural medium by showing my pain and losses and my feelings. There is no enforcement and therefore no expectations. Likewise the email communications. If you had deleted it you would have done so naturally because you respect my freedom to use the email without acting in breach of the common law. Given that we did not grow up together and therefore did not share common experiences, I am not required to know what your real common value is. This could result me being banned by your physical environment but given that I have already been banned in the core area of your environment this has no effect on me. It was very hurtful at the beginning when I received email after email from the very people whom I helped deliver their outcomes to do which I prevented myself from producing outcomes but became the faithful force that strengthened the process through which they produced the outcome. To the extent I was prematurely punished by you and these others who abused your/their natural majority power beyond the boundaries of their/your physical environments you/they have contributed to crimes in human values and finances. This is why our Hindu elders strongly recommend renunciation of material gains before going into service work. No gain no pain. You had gain by taking up higher position with me and hence pain. If you had legal authority to punish me then you would still have been morally wrong but legally right. Then you suffer with the whole country and not individually. Given that there are no email / banking laws covering your orders/instructions and threats whatever you do is your own karma. If it is your reality due to majority in your environment all you have to do is bear the cost / pain yourself for failing to develop a law / policy that shifts the pain/cost upwards to the institutional / national level.
One who connects intuitively to majority value at that place, at that point in time has the authority to give form to that value at that place and time. Hence majority vote. One who connects to the highest common value in that issue through faith and conscious calculations on the basis of law, has the authority to interpret the rule for the matter. Hence administrative/judicial status to the person with higher investment. If my investment in Australian financial systems had been upheld to reflect my earned status you would not have had the need to calculate. You would have intuitively known my standing as a good financial expert until proven otherwise something you would allow your own financial experts. You did not due to racial discrimination that happened most of the time and applied some of the time.
To prevent racial discrimination intuitively in Australia where there is no objectively measurable definition established by the authorities that benefit from the existence of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, you need to be connected through your faith to the pain and loss felt (not shown) by the victims. To prevent racial discrimination consciously, you need to actively practice equality until you know otherwise on merit basis. To show that you did not cause any racial discrimination pain you need to state the basis used by yourself show the results through that stated basis so that any genuine investor-user of that basis would arrive at the same results as yourself.
Where a member of a lawfully defined minority group accuses you of racial discrimination, you have the democratic responsibility to state the basis you used and show the results you produced through that path/due process. To my mind, you are guilty of racial discrimination but I am choosing not to take action because the big bosses like the UNSW Vice Chancellor who had the greater responsibility to uphold my earned professional status and who chose to damage my hard earned reputation, our family assets by sending official thugs to enforce entry into our home, my Income opportunities and had me labeled as a mentally ill criminal remains in hiding and under the protection of judges of his faith who keep jumping over the Walls of Separation upholding the Doctrine of Separation of Powers . If they had actually practiced democracy and therefore racial equality or no-race consciousness they would have naturally upheld and maintained the sacred walls of separation between the Executive and the Judiciary between social living and professional living. To catch the UNSW Vice Chancellor I had to not produce lower level outcomes when I was hurt. I did not, not because they calculated and knew my higher standards, but together we managed to include me at the lower / business level. Likewise your officers in the business banking section. Left to the likes of you, the Bank would fast become a local communist dictatorship or you would end up with the rich money makers returning your karma of telling what to do .
As stated publicly many times, I don t allow even my mother to tell me what to do when it involves others outside the two of us. Where my mother tells me regarding matters that involve only the two of us I take it however painful it may be because at the physical level my mother has done more for me than I for her. Now I know that by absorbing that pain, I included my mother in my group which automatically gives me and my branch of the family a very high status given that my mother is 83 and is largely independent. But when it comes to others including whether or not I should be doing the Service work I do we often clash. So I take measures to prevent such discussions because I know that I have earned higher status than my mother in that and if I get hurt and damage myself my mother would be damaged due to lack of faith based protection. Likewise if you and I had interacted as individuals without including anyone else, it is highly likely that I would have allowed you to take up the higher position of a physically older citizen group of Australia. I enjoy/ed that kind of interaction with many white Australians including Ministers. Towards this I raised my experiences to policy level the template they comfortably understand. But the moment you bring others including criminals and ANZ Bank into this and show your greater faith in them with you as a group and me as an outsider you were pushing me outside the protective walls of not only the laws of Australia but also of the standards of the professional community to which I have contributed rich and continue to do so. The only faith based connection available to me is with those outside those two circles which you claim you are out to destroy / damage. I cure them by including them first by using the higher status I enjoy with them and then by bringing them into my circle of goodness transaction by transaction project by project.
.There were two parties involved in the two matters with the Bank. Below are the responses from them which is similar to the responses I received from many Australian workers and managers who were cured similarly through participation and not accused and / or threatened:
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: Gajalakshmi_Param
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 2:58 AM
Subject: Re: Bank Credit
Attn: Gaja,
I am sorry for what i told you last time, i though you are not telling me the truth. Please fine a place in your heart to forgive me.
I had done by job, have a next day and good bye
Yours in Service,
:
and from the other:
ATTN: GAJA PARAM,
I RECEIVE YOUR MESSAGE AND I AM VERY HAPPY THAT YOU HAVE FOUND A PLACE IN YOUR HEART TO FORGIVE US.
And
Hello Gaja,
I got your email and the content was well understood,I just want to
use this opportunity to plead with you for all inconvieniences this
might have cost you all the way so this is to say that you working with us is over. Thank you and God Blessing always remain with you. Amen.
Left to you, they would have attacked you at their convenient level to damage you, including possibly in person. This happens all the time in Sri Lanka from all sides. Hence the travel warnings. But I do not judge outside the boundaries of our business and extend the same concession to those working outside legal borders as I did / do to those who are protected by those borders. Like in Australia but to a greater degree those borders do not protect the common person. They are there largely to give cover to the custodians of benefits.
Australians in Sri Lanka would know and have indicated that if they strictly followed the law, they would not be able to do business in Sri Lanka. Like in many countries that either have different looking laws to Australia or practice them at different levels. For example, when the current attack on the Tiger stronghold of Vanni/Killinochchi began, I witnessed bank officers putting all other transactions on hold to assist the displaced pensioners draw their monies from the banks in that affected area. They did not follow normal process but responded naturally to an emergency / crisis even though they might have fallen into trouble for doing that, with the government whose army was/is attacking the North. During Tsunami Reconstruction the official Australian group failed to respect and follow the policies of the incumbent government and its agents or raise their operations to the higher level beyond the understanding of the intellectually highest Sri Lankan. If they had stuck within legal circles they would have had no business in Sri Lanka. I did not find evidence in their work that they had raised it to the higher diplomatic level. As per your example they ought to have been reported to the International Court of Justice. The only working Global Court in our world of varying forms of laws and varying standards of practice of the same form is the Court of Natural Justice.
Diplomatic protection is for those who have practiced their nation s / institution s laws / policies at the highest level of their times and therefore have earned the status of Judges of the Court of Natural Justice. Hence their diplomatic immunity. It was on this basis that the United Kingdom did not charge the late Mr. Anton Balasingham who was political advisor to the Tamil Tigers. Mr. Balasingham s wife is of white Australian origin and continues to live and work from the UK. These are taken by Tamils all over the world, as confirmation that the UK recognized the faith based rebellion by Tamil Tigers to be outside their scope of legal judgment. England learned through experience. Gandhi proved that in people intense countries and environments, faith based majority power was far more valuable than thought and knowledge based intellectual power.
Mr. Hayes, to you it may seem arrogant that I would refuse to obey you the same way the UNSW Vice Chancellors who called the Police might have thought when I did not blindly obey them and their messengers. If I had, you/they and your/their institutions would have been damaged to cause real suffering to many Australians. You would have called it terrorism which is your jargon when someone who looks Asian commits a crime. But I would have known that it was return of your/their own karma each one as per their degree of contribution and neglect of institutional responsibility proportionate to the benefits they enjoyed.
You are yet to provide the legal basis and hence I conclude that you do not have one. This confirms to me that majority times you do not consciously use legal authority but your majority power. This is why you are failing at the international level where you do not have majority power in terms of your global investment v mine. This investment is made up of number of non-Australians you have interacted with plus the exclusive time you have spent with the highest global value in this issue. When your investment grows to a higher level than mine I would know intuitively because I have already come well past the 50% mark. Until you reach the 50% mark you need to strictly follow the path of the laws and policies that govern that process. If you produce your own outcomes before then you are violating the genuine earnings of every person who has gone past that 50% mark and therefore has earned the right to use intuition before the lawful path. If that path is not within a particular law outside the one that was practiced for example Trespass law which is outside the financial laws of my profession and the higher education laws of the UNSW that law is wrong and not the person who practiced with belief that the laws did not contradict each other.
Yours sincerely,
Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam
Chief Executive Officer
Edited By - Gaja - 19 Nov 2008 02:41:15 GMT |
Search All News and Discussions
19 Nov 2008 02:38:00 GMT 
19 Nov 2008 02:40:15 GMT 
19 Nov 2008 02:42:16 GMT 
19 Nov 2008 02:43:13 GMT 
19 Nov 2008 02:43:30 GMT 